I have always heard that height correlates with foot size as well. I have tremendously large feet (women's size 12) and I am 5'10" so I always say that my large feet are proportional to my height. But, now that I think about it, my mom is only 5'7" and wears a size 12 shoe also... so her large feet do not correlate to her height.

I have medium bone structure according to the finger/thumb test. Not sure what conclusions to draw from that!

I am 5'8" tall, wear size 9 shoe and have large bone structure.

I'm 5'1", wear 31/2 or 4 (depending on the brands) and have small bone structure.

I'm 5'5", wear size 6 shoe and have small bone structure.

I'm 5'4", have a medium bone structure (as above) and wear a 8.5 US shoe.

In the UK I have feet that are on the slightly above average size, in NZ I have feet that are on the slightly below average size.

I'm 5'3", have medium bone structure and medium feet (between 7-7.5).

I have often heard that foot size correlates to height, but never to bone structure. There are obviously a lot of small boned tall people, and large boned short people. I wear a size 6.5 shoe, am 5'1, and am medium boned.

A quick google search gave me a result that says that foot size is more closely correlated with limb length, rather than overall height. The site then uses Angie's rule of thumb that the foot length and forearm length should be the same. If that's the case, it would make sense that people with bigger feet tend to be taller, as their limbs also tend to be longer. But one can see how it wouldn't always be the case, as some people might have long arms, but short legs, or vice versa. I didn't measure my foot and forearm, but rather just put my foot on my forearm, and they do appear to be the same length.

I'm with Steph on this, and couldn't have said it better.

My feet are small (size 6) like the rest of me. But I am medium-framed. My feet may not be long, but they are not narrow. I take an M. Wide widths can also work sometimes but they give me a lot of room. My wrists are tiny (it's hard finding bracelets and watches) but proportionately they don't look tiny. They are medium.

This is also why I do not look healthy if I get down to the lowest weight for my 5'0" height (95 lbs) nor can I easily maintain such a low weight, and instead look and feel best right smack in the mid-range (110-115). Because frame size also correlates to where you should ideally land in the weight ranges. I do know 5'0" women who weigh 95 lb and look perfectly healthy at that weight - the difference is they have very delicate frames, with smaller wrists and ankles and narrower feet.

My DD15 is also medium framed like me. She is 5'3" with size 7 feet. My DD16 is interesting: she is extremely delicate from the waist up - her wrists are smaller than mine though she is 3 inches taller. Her shoulders are narrower too. Her fingers are long and slender and dainty. But then below the waist, she's more medium framed, with medium width feet (size 8) and ankles.

What about your hands? Mine are teeny-tiny! I have the smallest hands and fingers ever. They are like kids' hands. But not really delicate or slender. Just short. I have the hardest time of all finding gloves that fit.

I find this fascinating, thanks for the thread Patience.
I don't have a tape measure with me so I have to go on the camparison gauge.
Putting my foot to my forearm, my forearm is at least 1 1/2" longer.
I am medium framed according to the fingers around the wrist test.
I am 5' 8" and wear a size 8 shoe. I have been this height and shoe size since I was 13 yrs old.
I have always heard that a puppy with big feet will be a big dog, but have never heard that about children and their eventual height.

160cm(5'3) and 7.5, guess I am quite unproportioned :)

Fun and fascinating! PLEASE post results on today’s blog post when you have a chance. Measure accurately! Putting your foot on your forearm is not *quite* there :0)

At 5ft 6, I have very small bone structure (my wrist measures less than 13cm which is 5 inches) – lots of overlapping index finger and thumb. I also have a small foot size for my height – UD 6.5, Euro 37 or 36.5. I attribute this to nothing else than my Asian heritage. (Late Mum was half Dutch, half Indonesian and I have her small frame).

Going by this method, I have a medium frame. However, using this calculator, I have a small frame:

http://www.dietandfitnesstoday.com/bodyFrame.php

My shoe size is a 6 but very wide. I do not think this has much to do at all with my frame though. My feet have widened over the years due to a mechanical defect.

I also have child-sized hands and fingers and have similar wrists to Angie (mine are bigger, but still small enough that her white watch fits me perfectly).

I have some thumb-finger overlap, but I am definitely not small-framed, more like medium. I am 5'7'' and wear 8-8.5 depending on the shape of the toe box.

Wow Marianne, you're only 5'7? Based on your pictures I always thought you were like supermodel tall. That's very interesting.

I'm 5'3", medium framed, and medium shoe-- 7.5

Thanks for the link, Maya. I do feel like the fingers around the wrist measurement throws in another variable making the experiment a little less scientific (not that this experiment is very scientific at all.) *But* it also seems like the finger method would help to account for wrists that are small or large relative to other wrists but not necessarily corresponding to small or large frames of that particular person. Like Shiny-- who has small wrists relative to most people but is medium framed. So Shiny, what does the fingers around the wrist method tell you? Since your hands are also small I'm wondering if that test tells you that you are medium framed, correctly. Maya, since you got two different results, which one do you think is right? Do you have small wrists and hands, but are still medium framed or are you small framed and just have small hands relative to your wrists? (I feel like I'm clear as mud.)

I'll wait to sum up the results, but I do suspect that frame size, height and foot size are all inter-related but it still remains a rule of thumb only.

I'm 62 3/4" tall and wear a 6.5 medium width shoe. According to the method Patience is using, I have a medium frame. According to the the link Maya posted, I have a small frame. My wrist is 5.5". I have always felt I had a small frame based on my comfortable weight range. I like to be between 111 & 114 and just 5 lbs. beyond this range really makes a big difference.

It's so interesting to see the comparisons.

Thanks, Donna. I meant to mention the weight thing too for determining your frame size that Shiny also brought up. Here's a link for weight ranges based on your height and frame size:

http://www.healthchecksystems......tchart.htm

My comfortable weight is actually right at the small/medium frame size overlap but I still think I'm medium framed.

As Donna points out go with the frame size you feel fits you, even if the tests show up something different.

Eh, I don't really know to be honest. I have been playing around with different calculators and am now realizing how unscientific and unreliable all of this is. According to the one I just tried and one other, I am large framed. That's a joke. I know I felt most comfortable weight-wise between 95 and 110. I know that sounds freakishly small, but I honestly did not look THAT skinny. I was slim but not frail or gaunt...basically the same as I look now, minus 2" in all directions (except the bust, which was substantially smaller). I guess that would indicate a small frame but I'm not sure. I don't feel small and I can't say whether that is due to my bone structure or the fact that I weigh a bit more than my comfort zone.

Marianne – you are at least 5ft 8. Did you measure yourself again?

I have tiny wrists but long fingers. That’s another reason for loads of finger over lapping. A tricky additional variable.

I like to eye-ball it too. Sorry! I’m not that scientific. Maya is definitely small framed and Marianne is medium framed. (I've met them both).

I wear size 7 shoes, have a medium frame (barely, probably actually large), and I'm 5'6", closer to 5'7". It seems like my feet should be bigger compared to my height and bone structure.

I am 5' 3 3/4" (every quarter-inch counts when you are short!!), and I wear a 6 1/2 or 7 shoe (37 Euro). I am small-framed according to your wrist test. So what you're saying definitely makes sense.

I know one older person whose feet are very large (like a size 12 or 13) and whose hands are large too, but who is on the short side (5'8" - this person is a "he"). I've always had the theory that because he was orphaned as a child and had a generally tough childhood (back in the 1930s), he lacked proper nutrition and never grew into his feet. Perhaps I am completely crazy, but that has been my hunch.

Fun thread!

I'm 5 ft 8, wear a size 7.5/8 (European size 38) shoe, and if I use the index finger/thumb method I'm large boned.
According to other sites like this one (click on "Body frame sizes"), I'm medium boned though.
http://www.am-i-fat.com/
Not sure which one is correct, I might be borderline medium boned;-)

I've also heard that some use the "longest finger/thumb" method, instead of the index finger, which makes kind of sense to me (some people's index finger is longer than their middle finger for example).

And to Angie's point: I have quite small hands and short fingers for my height, maybe this changes things too?-)

That's funny, Maya. I'd guess you're small-boned too, but there is an official verdict from Angie already.
Angie, that's what they always measure at the dr's. I am not in denial! I just tried measuring at home and using my imperfect method it came to 5'7.5''.

Size 8 US shoes, 5' 6" tall, and small frame. Feet are narrow. Wrist size is just over 5 inches around.

My wrist is 5.5 inches. Angie, you have a seriously small wrist!

Curious what everyone's hands measure? from base of palm to the tip of my longest finger (which is my middle finger) I get 6.5 inches. My middle finger is just barely 3 inches long.

My wrist and hand measurements are pretty similar to yours Shiny. I think the only reason I'm considered small-framed is because I'm a couple of inches taller than you. I'm probably right at the border.

Just measured for shiny's question - the distance between the base of my palm and the tip of my middle finger is just under 6 inches. I measured my middle finger, and got 2.5 inches long.

No wonder I'm lost trying to figure out what a good goal weight/size would be. I figure I'll recognize it whenever I get there.

Shiny, hand measures 7 inches at your request. And I *do* have seriously small wrists.

Marianne, I bet I’d measure you at 5ft 8. I trust my eyeballs! I’m coming over with my tape measure.

Maya, that makes sense. A few inches in height can make a difference. Just looking at you, I would call you small framed. One of those sites said that 5.5 inch wrist - if you are less than 5'3" - is both small and medium framed - so it's right on the cusp. So if you're closer to 5'3" then yeah, you're small framed. closer to 5'0", you're medium. Makes sense to me!

I've enjoyed all these measurement tests we've been doing, because it has made me realize I am pretty well proportioned - just in a miniaturized package. For the longest time, I thought I was some horrible freak of nature! That my legs and arms were unnaturally stunted. My mom smoked all throughout her pregnancy with me (back then, nobody thought twice about that), so I would blame her for stunting my growth. Growing up, my sister would tease me and call me names. "Stub" and "stubby" are nicknames for many people in my family, who are short (it is true the men in my family tend to have a long torso and short legs - I guess I assumed I did too). I've even gone so far as to research whether I have some weird genetic problem. Drove myself crazy!

But now I know, there's nothing wrong with me at all. I may be short, but my proportions - for my height - are average. That's such a relief! But it boggles my mind, it's just so weird how you can look at yourself in the mirror and see something entirely different than the truth, isn't it?